Andy

@AnnaLeptikon I find your perspective interesting. The blending of critically rational epistemology and Iain's split brain perspective. Have you read Deutsch's books? Also, stay positive, keep tweeting reading. You will be moving weights again.

In 1964, the cry was, "You’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop." The choice of the body as the metaphor is what makes this speech so apt for diagnosing where our philosophical understanding of knowledge, and indeed of the world, is now going astray: The machine metaphor – cognitivist, dualist, reductionist, elegant – has delivered scientific and technological wonders. Yet when taken as a total picture of mind and action, it hollows out the very soil on which these systems stand. As Hubert Dreyfus observed, “Our skillful, everyday coping does not require a representation of what we are doing. It is this unrepresented background of common practices that makes all explicit behavior possible.” Intelligence is not a matter of detached computation; knowledge is not an abstract repository of propositions. Both are tacit, embodied, and inextricably situated within the weave of shared cultural practices—within, as Merleau-Ponty would say, la chair du monde (“the flesh of the world”). From the perspective of thinkers like Dreyfus, Heidegger, Varela and Maturana, or Merleau-Ponty, the call to "put our bodies upon the gears" could mean refusing to cooperate, bodily and existentially, with the very infrastructures, metaphors, and patterns of action that are steering thought in a reductive direction. The “levers” now are not merely industrial, but conceptual: the entrenched idea of the mind as an information processor and the world as a representation. As Heidegger reminded us, “The essence of technology is by no means anything technological.” Such conceptual machinery is immensely powerful—indeed indispensable—when building technology. But it is lopsided as a philosophy of life. What is needed is a deliberate rebalancing, a renewed insistence that knowing arises not from computation alone, but from being alive, moving in the world as a body, and dwelling with others. Maturana said "to live is to know", and you can turn it around as well: to know is to live.

@astupple @bnielson01 @dela3499 @BenjaminDEKR @ToKTeacher @ChipkinLogan I am trying as well. But with a character limit I am not doing so as clearly as Bruce's replies that seemed to crystalize the discussion to specific questions/concepts. However, the responses seem to side step them IMO.

@astupple @bnielson01 @dela3499 @BenjaminDEKR @ToKTeacher @ChipkinLogan The responses did not seem to be aimed to advance the discussion (lead to more knowledge). They also did not seem intend to persuade Bruce or myself, are they for others reading? More framing after Bruce criticized framing and targetted the discussion in a fruitful manner.

"Resist the algorithm" - Elon's chief brain surgeon (literally)

@dela3499 @astupple @bnielson01 @BenjaminDEKR @ToKTeacher @ChipkinLogan is regulation always an authoritarian solution? Not if people choose to have a gov. and the reg and free to act to remove and change it? If it is by default, is the term authoritarian even useful? That would imply all constraints are authoritarian, even self imposed.

@astupple @WiselyUncertain @bnielson01 @BenjaminDEKR @ToKTeacher @ChipkinLogan I sum all this stuff up as: We're always - rationally and unavoidably - going with imperfect solutions, ones with various shortcomings. Sometimes the shortcoming is that the solution is coercive. An option can be hugely problematic, but may also be the best available.

@astupple @bnielson01 @dela3499 @BenjaminDEKR @ToKTeacher @ChipkinLogan I say this as one who enjoyed your book. It challenged me in a good way and impacted my parenting. Also, I have to respect someone who not only enjoyed BoI but changed his life due to the influence. Hope you can respond to some of Bruce's thoughtful questions.

@astupple @bnielson01 @dela3499 @BenjaminDEKR @ToKTeacher @ChipkinLogan Error correction is key, I agree! Removing an entire cohort of solutions to problems (error correction) due to ideology with no evidence or logic for justification is the antithesis of prioritizing error correction. Regs in open societies are dynamic. x.com/WiselyUncertai…

@astupple @bnielson01 @dela3499 @BenjaminDEKR @ToKTeacher @ChipkinLogan Who is this reply for? It is more framing/ideology without nuance. Problem solving and error correction are consistent with regulations, if there is no other solution on hand. Both Popper and Deutsch expressed this view. By all means correct or remove regs with solutions!

“compare current, real-world regulations to a currently unknown future state of market solutions that doesn’t exist yet.” This is pessimism (deal only with what we now know) vs. optimism (appeal to what we could know). I’m arguing for optimism, you’re asking “but what if it can’t work.” You cant know that it can’t work. I admit it might and often does fail, nonetheless we gotta try.

@astupple @bnielson01 @dela3499 @BenjaminDEKR @ToKTeacher @ChipkinLogan "There are 0 cases where regulation is better" and yet there may be cases where regulation works better than the best free market solution thus far? If a society of free individuals decides to form a gov. and regs to address problems, how should they respond to your criticism?

I’ll just respond to this: “we should not find systematic cases where regulation works better.” There are zero cases where regulations are better than the best possible free market solution, because freedom accesses an unbounded set of possible solutions, whereas regulations are always bounded. The best you’ve got is that a regulation might be better than the best solution free markets have thought of so far, but I wouldn’t want to set our sights so low.

@bnielson01 @dela3499 @BenjaminDEKR Good question! I hope Carlos responds. It would be a fruitful conversation with nuance. I enjoy the content from folks like Carlos , @astupple, @ToKTeacher, @ChipkinLogan but often find little nuance beyond the ideology when it comes to regulation.

Well, no one ever said Harmful = Worth regulating. However, would you be willing to to make your view explicit in the following way: "We should NEVER regulate anything for being harmful." Now that would be a risky and bold claim worth criticizing! If this is what you mean, please say so! Let's discuss! But if all you doing is arguing against any one specific proposal to regulate on the grounds that harm does not equally worth regulating, that is a pretty weak claim. (I'd say an entirely contentless claim because it is a simple strawman.)

@dela3499 Have you heard @bnielson01 podcasts? Episodes 37-40. One of the few areas I had an initial and continued doubt in Deutsch's views.

28 books on animal intelligence. Recent, older, old. Bestsellers & academics. x.com/i/grok/share/e…

@oscredwin @maxflowminclout What are your thoughts regarding research showing more protein leads to more MPS over short duration? Is that enough to imply more protein chronically elevated MPS and therefore one increases FFM more efficiently for a given training stimulus?

@maxflowminclout My current model (which I want more good data for) says that more protein is better with diminishing returns. If you're at .8g/lbs of bodyweight (1.7g/kg) that's probably more than enough for most people who aren't athletes trying to put on muscle.

I assumed taleb was on one, but I looked into it some more, and the protein for strength training literature is amongst the worst I've seen. e.g. spot the problems with this graph, from by far the most cited meta-analysis in the field (A source of the "1.6g/kg" myth) ...

@gmiller @ToKTeacher @0xSigil Maybe asteroids, disease, or other concerns caused by confused people. David Deutsch's writings are great but there are examples, such as this one, that do match my intuition. And yet his writings are great at explaining why we should not rely on intuition

@ToKTeacher @0xSigil What on god's green earth are you talking about? There are no 'inevitable problems that will end us all' that are anywhere near as dangerous as ASI would be. Climate change won't end us all. Economic inequality won't end us all. What exactly are you talking about?

Nothing is inevitable except problems - which we can always fail to solve. Hence: side with experimenters and creators - like @0xSigil - over those who fear “faster” and want to slow us down. Because then those inevitable problems will, eventually, overtake and end us all.

@astupple It is entirely possible the market will not feel the same way about BTC as you. If so, it would fail as a SOV. Currently it's speculative asset (correlates with risky assets). I hold some for possible returns, but I definitely do not consider it a SOV.

@astupple I understand BTC has features that would that suit being a verifiable and decentralized SOV (I have been into BTC since it survived the 2017/19 crash and have read Vijays work). My point is that maintaining PP is the by far the most important feature to function as a SOV.

Bitcoin can be used for lots of things. I think it's best use is as a store of value, and that its properties make it the best SOV ever created. Its price is not one of those properties. This is especially true because the SOV superiority of BTC is not widely known - how many ppl do you know IRL who have read @real_vijay? Since I think it's the best SOV, I don't plan on moving it to a worse SOV. Even if it goes to a dollar, what would be the point? As long as its SOV properties remain unchanged, I'll be holding it for life and explaining to my kids why they should do the same. From that perspective, any finite length of time, four years, 20 years, is technically "the short term view."

@astupple I assume you're saying that because of BTC's characteristics people in the future will eventually trade more value for it than you did today. However, prophesizing future people's desires and actions is not very popperian.

@astupple What is your definition of store of value? Normally it would imply maintaining or increasing purchasing power. Obviously trading $100k of purchasing power for 1 BTC and then only being able to convert it $1 of purchasing power fails to do that....?

@astupple @BrianHatano @listojiten @KarlPfleger @PeterAttiaMD @BioLayne Correct. It is practical to eat for short term goals: ☝️ muscle, 👇fat, 👇 LDL that may impact health over the longer term. A shame that people producing dozens of hours on the topic do not explore the nuance of diminishing returns and trade offs. Are they not curious?

There are many ways to eat to achieve many things, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But I am bothered by selling the idea that big complex issues like health and longevity (a more analytic-sounding word for health) can be solved by what you eat. Yes, eating cyanide has a big impact on longevity, but no shit. Smoking. Drinking your face off, again, you don’t need a four hour podcast to break that down (though if that’s your thing, great.) But the ratio of protein to fats, supplements and vitamins, weirdo exercise and certain weight training goals - these are all great examples of theories so easy-to-vary that they’re best ignored.

Hokum is “widely believed to be a blend of ‘hocus-pocus,’ meaning trickery or deception) and ‘bunkum’ (an older term for nonsense….” Bunk is cool, I like bunkum better. But the hocus-pocus element of hokum is great though.

@BrianHatano @astupple @listojiten I agree with Aaron: at this point one should not eat macro ratios based on longevity research. That said, I find the subject entertaining. @KarlPfleger's thoughts go a bit deeper than @PeterAttiaMD @BioLayne. train like a 💪 head, eat ornish? x.com/i/status/20176…

@BrianHatano @astupple @listojiten No and no. But if one applies Attia and Rhonda's advice regarding training, I doubt sarcopenia is a concern even if you eat lower protein. That said I supplement whey protein like an early 00s bodybuilding.com reader.... Still cannot "lose my gainz" 😄

@GestaltU @tomowenmorgan I agree. But that incentive was always there and surely taken advantage of by a few. The vibe today is that it's open season for unproductive profits and fraud. You're a sucker if you don't. It's practiced shamelessly in public. But why no outcry? That idk... The info age?

Lots of answers to this, but this one is probably least contentious: Cooperative systems are generative by nature. Trust suffuses, benefits multiply, the long game has the highest payoff. But they’re also uniquely fragile. A single defector can shift the entire logic: once one person starts exploiting, cooperation becomes irrational for everyone else. The game collapses from abundance to scarcity, from building to hoarding. The tragedy isn’t that they take more. It’s that their taking breaks the game for everyone. The rest is gravity.

It's because, once we hit an objectively good life, we ache for a kind of transcendence our society says doesn't exist.